I've decided it's time to find a financial advisor to help coordinate our long-term planning. I'm not looking for active management, market timing, or access to private deals. What I need is thoughtful tax-efficient planning across taxable, tax deferred, and Roth accounts as we continue to accumulate assets.

I'm 44 and would like to preserve the option to retire around 55. From a savings standpoint, we are in good shape, but I want someone who is proactive around minimizing tax drag, withdrawal sequencing, estate coordination, and long-term planning decisions.

I also need someone familiar with executive compensation issues, including Performance Share Units and related tax considerations.

Ideally looking for a fee-only fiduciary advisor or RIA. I'm currently in Houston but am open to working remotely via Zoom.

My wife works for Schneider Downs here in Pittsburgh but is looking for clients in Houston. We plan to move down there part of the year pretty soon. Her firm is fiduciary and fee based. She has her CFP and manages only high net worth families.

This!


Thanks for the post. Exactly who I/we need.

I would strongly endorse Holisitic. We moved our entire portfolio to them last fall. Exceeded our expectations on all fronts. PM me if you want to talk specifics.

What does high net worth mean? $10mil+?

topher06 said:

---

What does high net worth mean? $10mil+?

---

Generally, it's >$1mm in investable assets. $10mm would be considered "very high net worth".

$1MM = High Net Worth is surprising. Guess they've bought into the government's version of inflation.

AggieInHouston said:

---

topher06 said:

---

What does high net worth mean? $10mil+?

---

Generally, it's >$1mm in investable assets. $10mm would be considered "very high net worth".

---

As of 25 years ago, I never once heard of anyone using the term "high net worth" for anyone who had less than $5 million in investable assets. I don't think inflation has reduced this number.

However, if you're a financial advisor marketing your services, I guess it pays to dilute the terminology.

It's a made-up term, anyway - no standard definition exists.

I don't fully disagree. But then again, the % who have over $1mm in investable assets (not home equity) is relatively small. Think the last I saw was ~2% of US households. So 1 out of 50 qualify as "high". I think it makes sense when you look through that lens.

I don't think it's as simple as marketing spin. That number generally aligns with how the SEC defines it.


Stolen from wiki:
"Form ADV requires each investment adviser to state how many of their clients are "high-net-worth individuals", among other details; its Glossary of Terms explains that a "high-net-worth individual" is a person who is either a "qualified client" under rule 205-3 of the Advisers Act (currently[as of?] a person with at least $1,100,000 managed by the reporting investment adviser, or whose net worth the investment adviser reasonably believes exceeds $2,200,000 without counting their primary residence) or who is a "qualified purchaser" as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act mandates that the definition of a qualified client be reviewed every five years and adjusted for inflation.[8] For SEC purposes, a person's net worth may include assets held jointly with their spouse. Unlike the definitions used in the financial and banking trade, the SEC's definition of HNWI includes the value of a person's verifiable non-financial assets, such as a primary residence or art collection."

AggieInHouston said:

---

I don't fully disagree. But then again, the % who have over $1mm in investable assets (not home equity) is relatively small. Think the last I saw was ~2% of US households. So 1 out of 50 qualify as "high". I think it makes sense when you look through that lens.

---

The term I was familiar with for the $1-5 million NW population was "affluent", which makes more sense to me. I agree, there aren't enough households with high net worth, for a variety of reasons (high expense lifestyle being paramount).

Don't forget all the other terms: HNW, VHNW, UHNW, extremely HNW, ridiculously HNW, immeasurably HNW, etc.

AggieInHouston said:

---

Don't forget all the other terms: HNW, VHNW, UHNW, extremely HNW, ridiculously HNW, immeasurably HNW, etc.

---

Agree - it's all semantics, and definitional navel-gazing.

My only point is that if the bar is set in order for people to feel comfortable with alternative investments, private equity, private placements, etc., then a million net worth is FAR too small to allocate any to these vehicles (once again, IMHO). A million of liquid after-tax portfolio assets net worth - it's questionable. At a $5 million non-retirement investable asset net worth, it's pretty feasible to allocate a portion to alternatives.

Your mileage may vary...

I bleed maroon said:

---

AggieInHouston said:

---

Don't forget all the other terms: HNW, VHNW, UHNW, extremely HNW, ridiculously HNW, immeasurably HNW, etc.

---

Agree - it's all semantics, and definitional navel-gazing.

My only point is that if the bar is set in order for people to feel comfortable with alternative investments, private equity, private placements, etc., then a million net worth is FAR too small to allocate any to these vehicles (once again, IMHO). A million of liquid after-tax portfolio assets net worth - it's questionable. At a $5 million non-retirement investable asset net worth, it's pretty feasible to allocate a portion to alternatives.

Your mileage may vary...

---

If only there was a higher bar than accredited investor to denote that certain purchasers were qualified to invest in certain alternatives....

I either haven't been around long enough or paid enough attention to know the inside joke. Is this yet another one of those many instances in America where the system is set up for wealthier people to fail?

AggieInHouston said:

---

I either haven't been around long enough or paid enough attention to know the inside joke. Is this yet another one of those many instances in America where the system is set up for wealthier people to fail?

---

Nah - we had one poster who tried to convince everyone that the ONLY way to win at investing what to scrape together a few hundred thou and get a fancy "accredited investor" card. I don't think anyone fell for it, but several had to be talked off the ledge. We're just trying to avoid a repeat...

I bleed maroon said:

---

AggieInHouston said:

---

I either haven't been around long enough or paid enough attention to know the inside joke. Is this yet another one of those many instances in America where the system is set up for wealthier people to fail?

---

Nah - we had one poster who tried to convince everyone that the ONLY way to win at investing what to scrape together a few hundred thou and get a fancy "accredited investor" card. I don't think anyone fell for it, but several had to be talked off the ledge. We're just trying to avoid a repeat...

---

That thread was a lot of fun

HNW investor definition varies from firm to firm but a good place to start would be the $500k minimum Merrill has in order to warrant having an advisor. And most major firms restrict buying on "sketchy" issues due to legal issues. Customers tend to sue when they lose money, and even frivolous lawsuits cost money.